Mr. Speaker, considering the updating of the government's strategy, simply in order to limit political fallout, and considering the seriousness of the Prime MInister's involvement, what other forum is there outside of an independent public inquiry that can provide us with the proper information on the extent and gravity of the situation, which involves the entire government?

Mr. Speaker, the commodification of human life is a serious concern. The health committee was unanimous in calling for a prohibition on the patenting of humans as well as any human materials. Why has the health minister ignored her committee?

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, just yesterday we received the report of the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee and we will be examining its analysis and recommendations very closely in the period ahead.

Taken together with cases which are before the country's highest court, these issues have to be considered by the government and by the House. Therefore, I assure the member that we will be looking very closely at these recommendations to see what is in the public interest.

Yesterday the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee recommended that patents on human bodies should be prohibited at all stages of development. However, in January we were shocked to learn that Industry Canada had been issuing patents on human genes for years, so human life has become a commodity in Canada.

Is the government comfortable with that practice or will it do something about it?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hillsborough his fine question. Over the past four years the Government of Canada has worked hard to promote sustainable oceans development through the Oceans Act. We have launched 21 integrated management pilot initiatives across the country and contributed to dozens of stewardship activities and international events.

I am quite proud of the work done by DFO employees, together with Canadians from all regions, to manage our oceans resource.

I ask the House and all my colleagues to join me in celebrating oceans day.

Mr. Speaker, the story of the Virginia Fontaine treatment centre is a sad one. It is a story about the abuse of trust. It is a tragic tale of cruises, condos and corruption. It is a story about reprehensible people who use the plight of aboriginal people and young aboriginal children addicted to substances to line their own pockets.

Yesterday the government said that it had overpaid the provinces and it wanted all the money back. Therefore, in the interests of consistency, I ask the government this. How many of the dollars that were stolen from troubled aboriginal children has it recovered?

Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, as soon as it became known to him that there was an alleged misuse of public funds, took immediate action. We are now relying on two national firms of chartered accountants to conduct audits in accordance with professional standards.

It is very clear to us that this is indeed a troubling and difficult situation. We are acting expeditiously to ensure: first, that these kinds of things do not happen again; and, second, that--

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not acceptable. There have been zero charges laid, zero dollars recovered, zero steps taken and zero demonstration that the government has learned anything from its past failures.

This week the government quietly reopened the facility. Aboriginal leaders I have spoken with have justifiable fears of recurrences.

In its haste to download responsibilities on to aboriginal communities without appropriate training, without appropriate safeguards in place, why is the government abdicating its responsibility to aboriginal children?

Mr. Speaker, we are not abdicating our responsibility. As I said, as soon as it became known that public funds may have been misused, action was taken. We are proceeding. We have taken two court actions against the Virginia Fontaine addiction centre.

Let me reassure this hon. member that we take this situation very seriously. We will do everything in our power to ensure that aboriginal children and others are not put at risk.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House that a public inquiry was not needed. He said “We cannot be any more open than we are being right now”. Yet today we learned that the Prime Minister knew there were serious problems with the sponsorship program.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the Prime Minister telling us that he wanted to provide all of the information to the House in response to our questions, when in fact, for two years, he did everything possible to ensure that this affair did not become public knowledge? Such hypocrisy.

Paul SzaboLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of the internal audit that was commissioned by Public Works and Government Services Canada, corrective actions were taken.

As a consequence of further irregularities being found, the department instituted corrective actions. We now have a management framework review by the treasury board. We have a review by the public accounts committee. We have a complete review by the department itself. We have a formal review by the auditor general in addition to investigations that have been referred to the RCMP.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of State for ACOA explain to us how Atlantic Canada is attracting new investment and why the Alliance members are so wrong when they claim that the defeatist attitude in Atlantic Canada impedes economic growth?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is very right to be proud of the performance of Atlantic Canada.

While the Canadian Alliance is spreading a tale of defeatism about Atlantic Canada, myself, the four Atlantic premiers and 65 business people were in New York City. We talked to New York City business people who were looking to invest in Atlantic Canada. Those people told us that Atlantic Canada had one of the most entrepreneurial climates that they had ever seen. They are very proud of Atlantic Canada.

We are carrying on that winning relationship. It has been reinforced that Atlantic Canada is a fabulous place to do business.

Mr. Speaker, this week 34 ministers of the Organization of American States, pledging to collectively fight terrorism and increase security across the western hemisphere, signed an anti-terrorism agreement. Canada was not one of the signatories.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Why did the government neglect to sign the inter-American convention against terrorism?

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion and the pride to represent our country at that meeting. I made it clear to all the participants at the meeting that Canada will sign that agreement. As was put to me by the secretary general of the organization itself, Canada is ensuring that we have everything in proper order in our own house before we do so.

We will get this through cabinet. This agreement will be signed. We have full co-operation with every nation in the Americas in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, for two years the Prime Minister's office knew of the problems with the sponsorship program. As soon as the internal investigation was launched in 2000, the PMO could have put an end to the shenanigans.

However, the Prime Minister's close advisers preferred to spend their energy covering up the affair instead of ordering a real administrative reform and dealing with the guilty parties.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister, who is strangely silent in defence of the Prime Minister today, still say that an independent public inquiry is not necessary, when clearly it is the only way to truly find out what really happened, and more importantly, who was pulling the strings?

Paul SzaboLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, since the first internal audit in 2000, corrective action plans have been taken. There have been numerous referrals to authorities and the auditor general is involved.

The new Minister of Public Works and Government Services has been decisive in his initiatives and actions. In addition, he has been respectful of the House of Commons by being forthright and constructive in his answers.

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has tabled 11th hour amendments on critical habit and scientific listing closer to the Progressive Conservative position. However the minister also knew if he did not, the Liberals likely would have voted down his bill, not only costing the bill but likely his cabinet position along the way.

If the minister is willing to table amendments, why will he not table amendments to have more clarity with the compensation regime? Why is the minister still willing to sell out rural Canadians and Liberal backbenchers by not providing more clarity about when we compensate and when we do not?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member's support for the amendments that were tabled yesterday.

It is important to recognize that there is some difference here. The issue of compensation has been looked at closely. We had an excellent study done by Dr. Peter Pearse, professor emeritus of resource economics at UBC.

The difficulty of outlining in advance the rules for compensation proved to be beyond our ability to handle at this time. After we have had some experience with the process that we have put in place in the bill, we expect we will be able to put in clear rules for compensation.